What do you all think? Is this evolutionary, ‘small steps’ approach a robust way to handle the future, or am I missing a crucial piece of the puzzle?
Thank you very much for raising this question. If we consider that in conventional society, altruistic behavior seems extreme and very risky, then it is essential to consider social reality in a somewhat radical way… since the pretensions of objectivity and impartiality always lead to radical conclusions regarding the conventional wisdom of the time.
My suggestion—very briefly—has to do with what appears to be evidence of moral evolution, which seems to more or less coincide with the idea of the “Civilizing Process.”
I always start with the simplest example: why did the oppressing class of the 19th century tolerate the gradual emancipation of the disadvantaged classes, as evidenced by the labor movement and the democratization of Western society in general? Why, on the other hand, did the oppressors of ancient Rome have no tolerance whatsoever for rebellious slaves, like Spartacus?
I can’t find any explanation for this in the realm of politics, economics, or technology. The only explanation I can think of is that a moral evolution occurred among the oppressing classes. Is this proof that “moral evolution” exists?
And if it has existed and exists, why shouldn’t it continue to exist in the future? If so, this should be the primary question: how to promote it.
Thank you for your reply. Maybe we understand the term ‘evolution’ not entirely in the same way. It seems that you take it as a similar term to progressivism, regarding that modern morals are definitely better than those brutal ones in ancient times. Although I agree with modern values as most modern people do, what I argue is that we need to be very caustious when considering ‘promoting’ those values.
Put simply, the reason is that moral values survive because they fit the current environment, but the environment may change at any time, anywhere. While we instinctly want to implement our own morals, we must be aware that the same morals may not survive in dissimilar environments. Meanwhile, we also have to adapt ourselves to new changes that are significant enough. So it is not easy to find a fixed moral system to promote.
However, it doesn’t mean that we can do nothing. My proposal here is that if we lower our expectation, no longer pursuing something universally long-termly good, we may find it eaiser to practice something locally, mid-termly good. This may be a better strategy for us to finally achieve long-term goodness.
moral values survive because they fit the current environment, but the environment may change at any time, anywhere
Don’t you think that the primary environmental determinant of moral evolution is prior moral evolution itself?
Social change cannot be advanced unless we extract some understandable guidelines for long-term human development. There is a linear moral evolution, it’s evident, in the sense of controlling aggression and developing social strategies for effective cooperation. The first step must be to recognize this evidence, as is the case with Darwinian evolution or heliocentrism.
Short-term pragmatism will never be the long-term solution.
The fact that there is today an apolitical movement for social progress centered on individual commitment to a behavioral trait (altruism) can be interpreted as a milestone in moral evolution. What is missing is for that single behavioral trait (“effective” altruism) to be linked to a set of related behavioral traits (all of them consequences of controlling aggression) to give rise to a cultural alternative.
We are close, it seems to me, to achieving an “ideology of behavior,” which would perhaps be the decisive step in the progress of civilization. To deny this possibility seems irrational and a consequence of the weight of prejudice.
If I understand correctly, your argument is that moral evolution is determined by specific environmental factors, and these factors can be generalized into some simple, linear rules by clear evidence as in natural science.
As I mentioned above, I’m afraid almost half of the book, the Essays on Longtermism, stands on the opposite side of this idea. Evidence discussed in this book seems suggesting that moral evolution is a dynamic process, not simply determined by specific environmental factors. Plus, although we may find some simple rules that are able to explain moral evolution, they are rarely possible to be as simple as linear progressivism.
I do agree with you that we need to avoid short-sightedness, only that we need to do this very carefully, reducing our long-term goals as little as possible. Therefore, we can focus our energy on those few but really imporatant goals more effectively. Hope this clarify my opinion.
Thank you very much for raising this question. If we consider that in conventional society, altruistic behavior seems extreme and very risky, then it is essential to consider social reality in a somewhat radical way… since the pretensions of objectivity and impartiality always lead to radical conclusions regarding the conventional wisdom of the time.
My suggestion—very briefly—has to do with what appears to be evidence of moral evolution, which seems to more or less coincide with the idea of the “Civilizing Process.”
I always start with the simplest example: why did the oppressing class of the 19th century tolerate the gradual emancipation of the disadvantaged classes, as evidenced by the labor movement and the democratization of Western society in general? Why, on the other hand, did the oppressors of ancient Rome have no tolerance whatsoever for rebellious slaves, like Spartacus?
I can’t find any explanation for this in the realm of politics, economics, or technology. The only explanation I can think of is that a moral evolution occurred among the oppressing classes. Is this proof that “moral evolution” exists?
And if it has existed and exists, why shouldn’t it continue to exist in the future? If so, this should be the primary question: how to promote it.
Thank you for your reply. Maybe we understand the term ‘evolution’ not entirely in the same way. It seems that you take it as a similar term to progressivism, regarding that modern morals are definitely better than those brutal ones in ancient times. Although I agree with modern values as most modern people do, what I argue is that we need to be very caustious when considering ‘promoting’ those values.
Put simply, the reason is that moral values survive because they fit the current environment, but the environment may change at any time, anywhere. While we instinctly want to implement our own morals, we must be aware that the same morals may not survive in dissimilar environments. Meanwhile, we also have to adapt ourselves to new changes that are significant enough. So it is not easy to find a fixed moral system to promote.
However, it doesn’t mean that we can do nothing. My proposal here is that if we lower our expectation, no longer pursuing something universally long-termly good, we may find it eaiser to practice something locally, mid-termly good. This may be a better strategy for us to finally achieve long-term goodness.
Don’t you think that the primary environmental determinant of moral evolution is prior moral evolution itself?
Social change cannot be advanced unless we extract some understandable guidelines for long-term human development. There is a linear moral evolution, it’s evident, in the sense of controlling aggression and developing social strategies for effective cooperation. The first step must be to recognize this evidence, as is the case with Darwinian evolution or heliocentrism.
Short-term pragmatism will never be the long-term solution.
The fact that there is today an apolitical movement for social progress centered on individual commitment to a behavioral trait (altruism) can be interpreted as a milestone in moral evolution. What is missing is for that single behavioral trait (“effective” altruism) to be linked to a set of related behavioral traits (all of them consequences of controlling aggression) to give rise to a cultural alternative.
We are close, it seems to me, to achieving an “ideology of behavior,” which would perhaps be the decisive step in the progress of civilization. To deny this possibility seems irrational and a consequence of the weight of prejudice.
If I understand correctly, your argument is that moral evolution is determined by specific environmental factors, and these factors can be generalized into some simple, linear rules by clear evidence as in natural science.
As I mentioned above, I’m afraid almost half of the book, the Essays on Longtermism, stands on the opposite side of this idea. Evidence discussed in this book seems suggesting that moral evolution is a dynamic process, not simply determined by specific environmental factors. Plus, although we may find some simple rules that are able to explain moral evolution, they are rarely possible to be as simple as linear progressivism.
I do agree with you that we need to avoid short-sightedness, only that we need to do this very carefully, reducing our long-term goals as little as possible. Therefore, we can focus our energy on those few but really imporatant goals more effectively. Hope this clarify my opinion.